On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 09:18:26AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > If we drop the "kmem_cache *s" parameter from kmem_cache_free_bulk(), > > and also make it handle kmalloc'ed objects. Why should we name it > > "kmem_cache_free_bulk"? ... what about naming it kfree_bulk() ??? > > Yes makes sense. IMHO kmem_cache_alloc_bulk/kfree_bulk looks awkward, especially taking into account the fact that we pair kmem_cache_alloc/kmem_cache_free and kmalloc/kfree, but never kmem_cache_alloc/kfree. So I'd vote for kmem_cache_free_bulk taking a kmem_cache as an argument, but I'm not a potential user of this API, so please don't count my vote :-) Thanks, Vladimir -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>